Introduction How should Christians form their identity considering the truth of the Gospel? 1 Peter is filled with exemplars …
Disadvantages of Inerrancy: Developing a new term
Introduction
When thinking of the enlightenment, and discovery of different New Testament Autographs, inerrancy of Scripture has become an important doctrine of debate in American Culture. The doctrine of inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is without error, although without error can mean many different things. Throughout Christian history, the church has believed that Scripture is sacred and without error. Until post-enlightenment, there was not official doctrines regarding inerrancy as the need to defend the Bible became more important. Inerrancy, a historically accurate view of Scripture, has been developed as a result of post-enlightenment pressures and a misunderstanding of the doctrine has led to inclinations towards depression and the doctrine of inerrancy should change its terminology to become a more internationally sensitive doctrine.
Inerrancy historically
The debate regarding inerrancy has consumed American evangelicals for much of the twentieth century. This debate eventually led to meeting in Chicago in 1978 as a group developed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI).[1] There are still debates regarding inerrancy and the CSBI. There are several disagreements regarding the terminology and what is meant by inspiration and inerrancy. Some evangelicals differ slightly from the statements made in the CSBI as they have different interpretations of the statements.
Greco-Roman Publication
Timothy N. Mitchell examines inerrancy and inspiration through the lens of the Greco-Roman writings to show how early Christians would have understood inspiration and inerrancy. Mitchell makes a case for inerrancy applying to the final writings of the compositions. He walks through Cicero, Pliny, and Galen’s writings to show how they understood their writings and how they could edit and create drafts, but until they gave their final stamp of approval, it was not considered theirs. This indicated that the New Testament writers may have created drafts and worked through an editing process before finalizing their writing and giving their stamp of approval. This means that early Roman Christians would have viewed that New Testament writings, in their completed form, bear divine inspiration and inerrancy.[2]
This conclusion that Roman Christians believed that inspired writings had no errors is sometimes challenged based on many Greek-inspired texts that it is not free from all error. In fact, there are levels of inspiration in which some Greek poets were sometimes considered more inspired than others.[3] Plato and Homer attest that in some Greek cases, divine inspiration is not always accepted. Despite the rare cases of divine inspiration still including errors, it is likely that the view is rare and isolated. Philo, of Alexandria says, “a prophet possessed by God… nothing what he says will be his own, for he that is truly under the control of the divine inspiration has no power of apprehension… but serves as the channel for the insistent words of another’s prompting.”[4] Philo is the perfect example of what the common Greek would have thought regarding inspiration.
It is important to note that one common objection to the inerrancy of Scripture is for a person to look at early church fathers and look at how they quoted Scripture. They would have minor changes and differences in their writings as well as parallel passages in the New Testament that changed some wording. It should be pointed out that early on they allowed some flexibility in Scripture but does not mean they have changed the meaning of the passage. Josephus rephrases the Old Testament, often times to make a point or help the reader understand better.[5] It seems as if it is not the original wording that was superior but rather it is the message that is important. At times, a single verb case can be used to make the point that God has. If it was merely the original language that was the Word of God and Inerrant, then every Christian would have to know Greek and Hebrew. Instead, translations are the Word of God up to the extent that they reflect the original manuscripts. Keener summarizes both Jewish and Greek concepts of inerrancy well when he says, “Greek conceptions of Inspiration often entailed inerrancy, but did not always do so. Jewish conceptions of inspiration in a generic sense could vary but entailed inerrancy with regard to Jewish appropriation of the Old Testament Scriptures, which were fully inspired.”[6]
Historical church figures views on inerrancy and inspiration
St. Augustine in his writings to Jerome mentions that Scripture is without error. Saint Augustine is directly speaking to Jerome as he makes a distinction between the reliability of Scripture, and the errors of Jerome’s theological treaties around 405 C.E. Saint Augustine says to Jerome, “Still, as I said awhile ago, it is only to the canonical Scriptures that I owe such a willing submission that I follow them alone, and believe of them that their authors were not in error anywhere at all in them, nor did they set down anything so as to deceive.”[7] Saint Augustine is claiming that Scripture then is without error and does not deceive people. This shows that as early as Saint Augustine, the view of Scripture not having errors was present.
Athanasius of Alexandria has a letter that is often considered as one of the most significant documents in Church history. The thirty-ninth Festival Letter is considered that significant because it is one of the first full lists of the New Testament. In this letter, Athanasius explains what books are canonical and which books are helpful for instruction but should not be considered cannon. For example, the Shepherd of Hermas is not to be considered canonical but it is helpful for instruction and understanding.[8] As Athanasius is listing the different canonical books, he never uses the term inerrancy. Even though Athanasius does not use the term inerrant, it is obvious by his concern of compiling a list of canonical books, that he has an extremely high view of Scripture. He creates the list for Christians to be able to distinguish between false apocryphal books and instructs them to not mix apocryphal books “with the divinely inspired Scripture.”[9] It would be absurd to think that Athanasius considered Scripture as having errors when he takes the time to list out all the different books in order to separate it from those that are non-canonical. Given the time, energy, and terminology he uses it appears as if he has a very high view of scripture, one that views it as proper in all that it teaches. It is divinely inspired according to Athanasius, so much so, that it seems as if the term inerrant is something Athanasius would agree with.
Not only do we have figures before the reformation that believe in inerrancy, it appears as if Martin Luther agrees with inerrancy as well. In his Argument in Defense of all the Articles in 1521, distinguishes between errant teachers and the inerrant word of God. Martin Luther takes the time to defend himself against those that claim he has rejected the teachers and teachings of the catholic church. Martin Luther says, “I do not reject them. But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; Therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred”[10] It is obvious by Martin Luther’s own words that he does not believe Scripture errors but that humans do. It is actually believed that the quote above was Martin Luther quoted from Augustine’s letter to Jerome.[11] This shows that Martin Luther believed that he was part of a long line of Christian thinkers that believed Scripture was without error.
John Calvin in Institutes of Christian Religion writes about Scripture being “sacred” and that there is a “truth divine.”[12] John Calvin follows behind Martin Luther as he is considered a second-generation reformer. Although John Calvin does not use the term inerrancy, he has a high view of Scripture as he works through the Institutes to support that Scripture is sacred and divine truth. Because Scripture is sacred and has divine truth, Calvin claims that scripture is “immeasurably superior to all the gifts and graces attainable by man.”[13] It would be strange for Calvin to have such a high view of scripture, but then claim that it contains errors. In fact, much of Calvin’s institutes is working through a systematic theology in which he makes sense of difficult passages that some consider contradictory. Most likely, Calvin having a high view of Scripture and believing in its inspiration, he would think that Scripture is inerrant even if he does not use the term.
To walk through all of church history and look at different theologians and church fathers who believed in inerrancy, would be far too exhaustive. The list of theologians and church fathers above is merely to give a condensed and short historical insight into the inerrancy debate. To give an explanation of the historical view in modern terms, it is best to quote J. I. Packer concerning Scripture. He rightfully asserts that Scripture is “word for word God-given; its message is an organic unity, the infallible Word of an infallible God, a web of revealed truths centered upon Christ; it must be interpreted in its natural sense, on the assumption of its inner harmony; and its meaning can be grasped only by those who humbly seek and gladly receive the help of the Holy Spirit.”[14] Christianity has a long history of believing that Scripture is sacred and something to be protected. Being divinely inspired, Scripture is trustworthy and true as the word of God does not have errors.
views of inerrancy
Biblical inerrancy has been a hotly debated topic for many years, especially in America. J.I. Packer describes a 30-year war over inerrancy in evangelical circles. Packer is an evangelical that was involved intimately during the debates over Biblical inerrancy and whether Christians should hold to it. Packer states,
“I see biblical authority as methodologically the most basic of theological issues. And I have fought not just for the sake of confessional orthodoxy or theological certainty or evangelical integrity or epistemological sanity or to counter dehumanizing rationalisms. Rather, my affirmation and defense of Holy Scripture has been first and foremost for the sake of pastoral and evangelistic ministry, lay godliness, the maturing of the church, and spiritual revival.”[15]
The debates regarding inerrancy creates a situation in which different denominations and scholars have vastly different views.
Evangelical Inerrancy
Albert Mohler Jr. agrees with J. I. Packer in that the doctrine of inerrancy is absolutely necessary for evangelicals to believe. Mohler Jr. says “I do not believe that evangelicalism can survive without the explicit and complete assertion of biblical inerrancy.”[16] Mohler Jr. believes the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy as he affirms the section titled “a short statement.” The short statements will be summarized to share R. Albert Mohler Jr.’s view regarding Scripture. He believes that God can only speak truth and since the Bible is inspired by God it must be absolutely true. Through the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures were written by man, Scripture is infallible regarding all matters that are addressed as it is written by divine authority. The Holy Spirit Authenticates Scripture and reveals its meaning to mankind. The fourth short statement says, “Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving.”[17] For many evangelicals, Biblical inerrancy has become one of its central doctrines. Many evangelicals claim that biblical inerrancy must be a foundational presupposition. It is often believed that Christian orthodoxy has always had the presupposition of inerrancy. Lee Allen Anderson Jr. argues that without the orthodox view of inerrancy, one is unable to defend with certainty any Biblical doctrine.[18]
Inerrancy as Verbal Dictation
There are variances in evangelical Christianity regarding the doctrine of inerrancy and what inerrancy means. One of the definitions of inerrancy is the verbal dictation theory. In the verbal dictation theory, it is believed that the entirety of Scripture consists of writings in which every single word was directly dictated by God.[19] This view usually does not argue that modern translations are perfect in every word, but rather the original manuscripts consist of every single word being dictated by God. It is sometimes argued that this view is traced to Origen of Alexandria.[20]Some Scholars have started to have issues with this view for several reasons, typically for its lack of accounting for difficult Biblical passages and for its lack of human element in the writing of Scripture. This view also seems unlikely because Scripture is not speaking perfectly true regarding scientific matters. For example, Isaiah 11:12 speaks of God bringing Jews back to Israel from the four corners of the earth. The earth does not actually have four corners as it is round. If God dictated every word of Scripture, why did he not use proper scientific data? If inerrancy requires every word to be absolutely true in what it says, then problems are discovered if we apply that thinking to scientific matter.
Inerrancy as Plenary verbal inspiration
In the previous view of inerrancy, inerrancy included scientific and historical matters as God dictated everything word for word. In Plenary Verbal Inspiration, God utilizes the authors of Scripture to produce ideas and words that represent his divine will and purpose completely, but they expressed God’s message in their own styles and words.[21]This means that each writers own personalities and cultures are included in Scripture as God uses that to accomplish the writing representing his divine will and purpose. This view of inspiration works well because one is not holding Scripture to modern scrutiny. In modern times, the printing press is available for distribution of writings in which every single copy is perfectly the same down to each period and comma. In Biblical times, words had much greater diversity and they did not have the printing press which means our standards of exactness in quotations should not be forced on Scripture. In reality, this view of inerrancy believes that the Bible is true in what it affirms for its own culture. It uses the culture of its time, and one cannot force their own culture back on to Scripture.[22] This means that when one reads the Scripture about the four corner of the earth, they know God is not giving actual science but is instead making a point in their culture and time. That point is not scientific as Scripture is not teaching regarding science but instead is making known God working through history to redeem all creation.
Other Views of inerrancy and inspiration
The last few views of inspiration seem to undermine Scripture and create a low view of the sacredness of Scripture. The last few views of inspirational and inerrancy are Partial inspiration in which some portions of the Bible are directed by God while other portions of Scripture may have errors. Typically, this view believes that matters necessary for salvation are reliable in Scripture but not other secondary matters as they reflect human perspectives. Conceptual Inspiration is another view of inspiration in which concepts were divinely given to the writers of Scripture, but they put them into their own words in a way that they understood them. That means that if they misunderstood a concept or idea that God perfectly gave, they could record it many errors. Lastly there is Natural Inspiration in which Scripture has no divine influences at all.[23] It seems unlikely that the church has held these views of inspiration as these views of Scripture seem to undermine its sacredness. These views seem to be incompatible with orthodoxy given the view of historical persons.
Chicago Statement on inerrancy
Given the historical view of inerrancy set forth earlier in this paper, Scripture throughout Christian history has been seen as sacred and without error. The term inerrancy develops later in Christian history. It is also difficult to narrow down what it means for Scripture to be sacred and without error. It is difficult to know what church figures meant when they thought Scripture was without error especially since there are things in Scripture that misstate scientific thought. The Chicago Statement was developed with the agenda to give a doctrinal statement to the reliability of Scripture.
The enlightenment created a radical shift in western thinking as it brought about new discoveries and challenged tradition. This was all made possible as the Protestant Reformation challenged authority and gave theological freedom. This groundwork led to many challenges in the Christian faith. The Christian faith experienced challenges in three specific areas regarding the Bible as a result of the enlightenment. Humanism, Higher Criticism, and the scientific method led to new ways of thinking about the Bible. The reformation created a culture in which different beliefs and views regarding the Bible were no longer tied to the catholic church but could actually be challenged. With all the new discoveries in science, Christians had a difficult job harmonizing science and Scripture. As a growing distrust in the Bible started to undermine the faith, it led to a conference conducted in Chicago.[24]
The conference held in Chicago met in October of 1978. There were over two hundred evangelical ministers and scholars that attended this meeting to develop the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, often abbreviated CSBI. The CSBI is interesting as it has often been misunderstood or taken out of context. For example, the Chicago statement mentions that Biblical interpretation has to treat genera properly as “history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor.” Massey uses this statement to claim that the Chicago statement means that everyone who agrees with it must believe that it teaches science and therefore creation is literal seven days and historically all dates are correct.[25] She goes on to explain how absurd this is and claims that the CSBI was only created because they were afraid of the enlightenment and wanted to “establish and patrol evangelical boundaries.”[26]
Before the enlightenment, there was not a necessity to creating a doctrine of inerrancy because the Bible had not been under such radical threat to its validity. Not only that but Massey assumes that when it says “history must be treated as history and poetry and poetry” she assumes that means that all facts must be correct in history. The CSBI statement, seems to be actually saying that each genre is different and should not be treated the same. For example, poetry is not making claims on scientific facts and should not be held up to that level of scrutiny. R. Albert Mohler Jr. argues for the necessity of inerrancy because it is more reliable than human understandings of archeology. He also works through tough Biblical passages to show the importance of Biblical Inerrancy in Evangelicalism.[27]
Misuse of inerrancy
Despite the truth of church history believing the Bible did not have errors, there is unfortunately a tendency to misuse inerrancy in Evangelical circles. Neal Kraus and Kenneth I. Pargament have an interesting investigation and study regarding those that believe in Biblical inerrancy. They took Data from a nationwide survey and found a relationship between a strong view of inerrancy and depressive symptoms. They defined Biblical inerrancy as “the Bible is inspired by God, is free from error, and should be taken literally, word-for-word.”[28] This definition differs from others. Either way, the conclusion of the data and research was that if one has a strong view of inerrancy, they were more likely to experience demonic spiritual struggles which made them feel as if the sacred aspects of their lives were threatened. The data showed that the greater the sacred loss is often associated with depressive symptoms.[29]
This is where Michael F. Bird’s view of inerrancy is important. He is an Australian Scholar and brings an international perspective to inerrancy. Bird seems to agree with much of the doctrine of inerrancy. Despite agreeing with it, he does not like the context in which inerrancy is used. He believes that different terminology should be used so that it can reach internationally. This is indeed logical because the global church does not heavily emphasize the “inerrancy” of Scripture. It is thought to be trustworthy, sacred, and true but inerrancy is an American term. This is why Bird prefers an international term such as divine truthfulness.[30]
Conclusion
Christians throughout history have believed that Scripture does not have any errors. Scripture is sacred as it is divinely inspired by the God of the universe. Church theologians throughout history have had a high view of Scripture in which the intended meaning of the passage is without error and that the Scripture passages accomplishes what God has set out for it to accomplish. Even though the definition of inerrancy and what that entails is sometimes debated, it is generally agreed upon that Scripture is inspired by God and contains no error in its intended purposes. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was developed as a result of the enlightenment and the challenges that were facing the church. Evangelicals created a wonderful piece of work that was relevant for its time. As the church becomes more global and inerrancy is misunderstood in churches, it is probably time for a new term to emerge. Inerrancy is often misunderstood and is more likely to lead towards depression for those that hold an improperly strict view of inerrancy. It is too strict when it is said to be taken literal word for word as some passages are not made to be taken literal. It is time for American Evangelicals to stop using strictly American terms and to use more international friendly terms. There are conservative evangelicals outside of the United States who believe in inerrancy but do not use the term because of all the baggage attached to it in the United States. American Evangelicals need to join the global church as they connect with other conservative evangelicals around the globe.
So What Now?
- Reflect on the amazing work of God in that he has revealed himself without any errors.
- Do not use the doctrine of inerrancy to shut down questions and interpretations of the Bible but instead welcome open dialogue.
- Consider creating or using a different term. Instead of saying you believe in inerrancy maybe use the term “reliability of Scripture.” I believe in the reliability of the Scriptures.
Want to read More?
To read more on Biblical inerrancy, one can click here to check out an amazon link to five views of Biblical inerrancy
Jesus: The Messiah Born in Scandal Snapshot Jesus birth is one of great scandal. Most translations make it sound like they were …
Hell, Free Will, and a loving God (part 2) Snapshot God has given free will and this gives people the ability to …
Sources
[1] Roger E. Olson. The Westminister Handbook to Evangelical Theology. Louisville: Westminister John Knox, 2004) 213-215
[2] Timothy N. Mitchelle, “What Are the NT Autographs? An Examination of the Doctrine of Inspiration and Inerrancy in Light of Greco-Roman Publication.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 59, no. 2, (2016) 304
[3] Craig S. Keener, “Greek Versus Jewish Conceptions of Inspiration and 2 Timothy 3:16.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 63, no. 2 (2020): 222
[4] Keener, Greek Versus Jewish, 228
[5] Ibid, 230
[6] Ibid, 231
[7] Augustine of Hippo, Letters (1-82). Edited by W. Parsons. (Vol. 1. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1951) 411-412
[8] David Brakke, “A New Fragment of Athanasius’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter: Heresy, Apocrypha, and the Canon.” (Harvard Theological Review, 2010) 47
[9] Athanasius of Alexandria, Festival Letters: St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. (Edited by P Shaff, H Wace, H Burgess, & Smith J Payne. Vol. 4. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892) 551
[10] Martin Luther, “Assertio Omnium Articulorum.” (In Luther’s Works, by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan. Philadelphia: Concordia College, 1958) 32.11
[11] Armin D. Baum. “Is New Testament Inerrancy a New Testament Concept? A Traditional and Therefore Open-Minded Answer.” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57, no. 2, 2014) 266
[12] John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. (Edited by Henry Beveridge. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008) 37
[13] Calvin, Institutes, 37
[14] James Innell Packer, Fundamentalism and the Word of God. Leicester: InterVarsity Fellowship, 1958) 113-114
[15] James Innell Packer, “The Thirty Years’ War: The Doctrine of the Holy Scripture.” In Practical Theology and the Ministry of the Church, 1952-1984: Essays in Honor of Edmund P. Clowney, (by Harvy M. Conn. Phillipsburg: P & R, 1990) 25
[16] Zondervan. Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2013) 31
[17] Zondervan, Five Views, 36
[18] Lee Allen Anderson Jr, “The Inerrancy and Authority of Scripture in Christian Apologetics.” (Journal of Ministry & Theology 21, no. 1 2017) 63
[19] Lesly F. Massey, Lesly F. “Biblical Inerrancy: An Anxious Reaction to Perceived Threat.” (Pennsylvania Literary Journal, no. 13 2021) 103
[20] Ibid, 102
[21] Massey, An Anxious Reaction, 102
[22] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2013) 203
[23] Massey, An Anxious Reaction, 102-104
[24] Massey, An Anxious Reaction, 107-113
[25] Massey, An Anxious Reaction, 113-114
[26] Ibid, 114
[27] David M. Allen, “Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy.” (Reviews in Religion & Theology 22, no. 1. 2015): 49
[28] Neal Krause, and Kenneth I. Paragament. “Biblical Inerrancy and Depressive Symptoms.” (Pastoral Psychology 67, no. 3. 2018) 291
[29] Krause, Inerrancy and Depressive, 302
[30] Zondervan, Five Views, 145-173